I can see what you are saying, Paul. That your typical bug is not as extensive as a lock-out of the whole machine. I still don't feel that it is fair to then conclude that Macs should not be used (at all).
It is also possible that different systems will have different "typical complete system breakdown" problems, which will make them not so easy to compare. For instance, I buy an "Ubuntu-certified" machine. I come home and try to install Ubuntu on it. It turns out, Wi-Fi does not work, because this "certified" laptop requires special wifi drivers that Ubuntu does not have. Where do you get the necessary wi-fi drivers? Of course, on the Internet.
So, my computer sat there for a day like a brick, until I could come to my office and connect through Ethernet.
Or, Ubuntu Karmic came with no Ethernet at all. And when I went to Ubuntu IRC to ask what's up, one of the developers said "Who uses wired internet these days anyway?" To my knowledge this was never fixed.
Additionally, Karmic had a video graphics problem and many users, including myself, would have their system randomly freeze up, with all work lost.
So, I would say that these kind of experiences might also evoke a very emotional response, especially when you loose your work, etc.
Is it comparable to what happened on a Mac? It could be. I do know that Macs typically do not lock out people. I have many-many friends who are using Macs for years and they have not had this problem.
To Thorsten:
I have to note you have no statistics, either, but of course that
doesn't stop you. It's as if you would ask for a level of sobriety,
factuality and precision that you yourself refuse to offer, while
pretending otherwise.Your rebuke would be fair, but I don't think I ever pretended I had statistics at hand?
I did offer a thought that if there is a customer relationship, then the software developer has more incentives and even obligations to make sure that critical errors do not happen. I do see that in the areas I am interested in this rule seems to work - I have mentioned video editors.
It would actually be interesting to get some sort of stats there. OpenShot is universally known to be extremely volatile, for example. Each time I tried it - it crashes within 5-10 mins of usage. I tried many versions, including OpenShot 2. And then there is Windows Movie Maker, which reliably does not crash.
But then the fact that we don't have stats for open source products reliability kind of hints to the fact that no QA is done anyway. Commercial companies typically have good stats on how reliable the program is. Because QA is done and statistics are collected. So, FLOSS might frequently be at a disadvantage.
I think that these considerations might be a good basis of saying that reliability is not the result of releasing a program under GPL. This alone will not magically produce more reliability. Testing, QA does. It's as simple as that.
"
Anyway, ignoring the mood set with hyperbole like "... for I have
sinned", going all pseudo-analytical instead, is rather tone-deaf."
Yeah, maybe. I feel strongly about this. I might have chosen to just shut up, which is the course of action I typically take anyway. But on the other hand, I think that this discussion is quite contained and we all try to be polite and considerate.
I definitely am far from being always careful and non-emotional, although I am trying to follow this path as much as possible!